Walton
alleges that he has preexisting, permanent injuries that make
walking difficult. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 11, 13.) Because of
his injuries, he was granted various medical restrictions
which included an assignment to bottom tier, bottom bunk
housing at WCF. (Id. at PageID 11, 15.) Walton
alleges that on April 17, 2017, Defendant Nurse Robertson
intentionally removed all of Walton's medical
restrictions, except for the bottom bunk assignment, because
Walton had filed grievances against her in February and April
2013. (Id. at PageID 8-9.) Walton, however, did not
learn that his medical restrictions had been removed until
December 6, 2017, when he received a copy of his health
assessment and was assigned to an upper-tier cell accessible
only by climbing steps. (Id. at PageID
9.)[1]

Walton
alleges that, after filing his grievances in 2013, Nurse
Robertson “started to display an overall demeanor of
hatred, resentfulness, and vengence [sic] towards”
Walton. (Id. at PageID 10.) He alleges that Nurse
Robertson's demeanor deterred him from filing further
grievances because he was afraid she would make decisions
that “could lead to substantial permanent serious
bodily injury.” (Id.) Walton did not file any
more grievances against Nurse Robertson until December 25,
2017, after he learned his medical restrictions had been
removed. (Id. at PageID 14.) Since then, Walton
alleges Nurse Robertson has acted “even more hateful
and resentful” towards him and has “fabricated
and falsified medical records relating to Plaintiff.”
(Id.) Walton alleges that his pain has worsened from
having to use the steps to access the upper tier for about
three months “from 12-6-17 to around 2-3-18.”
(Id. at PageID 12, 14, 37.) In February 2018, Walton
was reassigned to the bottom tier, but he alleges he has not
further grieved Nurse Robertson because he is afraid he will
be “placed back on the top tier.” (Id.
at PageID 37-38.)

Walton
alleges that Defendant Joy conspired with Nurse Robertson to
remove his medical restrictions when Joy approved
Robertson's allegedly fabricated health assessment of
Walton. (Id. at PageID 19-20.) Walton alleges that,
because Joy approved Robertson's falsified assessment,
Walton was given the top bunk housing assignment.
(Id. at PageID 20.) Walton also alleges that Joy
intentionally forced Walton to engage in rehabilitative
exercises despite knowing his injuries would not improve and
would instead worsen from the movement. (Id. at
PageID 21.)

Walton
alleges that he saw Defendant Nurse McCalvin several times
while trying to reinstate his medical restrictions.
(Id. at PageID 22.) He alleges McCalvin made him
complete needless paperwork to obtain his medical records
from outside agencies to prove his disability, even though
paperwork attesting as much was already in his prison medical
records; however, McCalvin allegedly never sent out the
paperwork to actually obtain the records. (Id. at
PageID 22-23.) Walton alleges McCalvin was acting to further
the conspiracy with Robertson and Joy to deprive Walton of
bottom tier, bottom bunk housing and worsen his injuries.
(Id. at PageID 23.)

Walton
further alleges that Grievance Chairman Jones denied Walton
full access to the grievance procedures at WCF by deeming
Walton's grievances “inappropriate.”
(Id. at PageID 25.) Walton alleges that Jones
retaliated against him for grieving Nurse Robertson, and in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy with the other
Defendants, by denying Walton a hearing for his grievance and
“fabricating the appeal process.” (Id.
at PageID 26-28.)

Walton
alleges that Warden Chapman wrongly agreed with Defendant Joy
that Walton's grievance was inappropriate under TDOC
policy. (Id. at PageID 29.) Walton asserts that
Warden Chapman therefore wrongly denied Walton a grievance
hearing and must have been conspiring with the other
Defendants. (Id. at PageID 29-30.) Walton accuses
Warden Chapman, Assistant Warden Walker, and Assistant
Commissioner Sexton of “rubber stamping” his
grievances and asserts that they should have conducted their
own investigations. (Id. at PageID 31-32, 36.)
Walton also alleges that Commissioner Parker failed to answer
his grievances and that, because Parker did not sign the
grievance, “the entire grievance was never properly
processed.” (Id. at PageID 33.)

The
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to
dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In
assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the standards under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007),
are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). The Court accepts the complaint's
“well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and
then determines whether the allegations “plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.'” Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Conclusory allegations
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth, ”
and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although
a complaint need only contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), Rule 8 nevertheless
requires factual allegations to make a
“‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion,
of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 n.3.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.